On the Report of the Moscow District of St. Petersburg Concerning the Elections to the Second Duma

Published:Proletary, No. 13, February 11, 1907.

      Published according to theProletarytext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 12,

      pages93-94.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Wecall our readers’ attention to the fact that the data on the elections of
delegates by the St. Petersburg workers expose, to an ever greater extent,the way in whichthe Mensheviks got themselves votes for the
Social-Democratic conference. From the Franco-Russian Subdistrict, for example,
they “brought” 370 Menshevik Votes to the conference. Here the
Bolsheviks did not count on a single valid Party vote. But what happened then?
The delegate from the Franco-Russian Factory was aBolshevik, who has
now been chosen as elector!

Andthat is where an unexpected exposure of the Mensheviks came from.

Tocontinue: the Menshevik weeklyNash Mir(No. 1, January 28) had the
temerity to say of the Moscow District that “in the Bolshevik Neva and
Moscow districts, exclusively Socialist-Revolutionaries were elected
as delegates” (p. 14). It has already been shown inProletary, No. 12
that this is apatent untruthas far as the Neva District is concerned,
’for there it was precisely the Mensheviks who were so thoroughly defeated by
the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

Letus turn to the Moscow District. The Mensheviks consider this a Bolshevik
districtnowthat they have to find somebody to blame for the defeat
other than them selves! But the Mensheviks must not forget that this time their
words can beverified!We can take theofficialstatement
made to the Central Committee by the thirty-one Mensheviks on their reasons for
leaving the conference (theprinted pamphlet we analysed inProletary, No.

				  12[1]).

Among the thirty-one signatures we find“five from the Moscow
District”.

Butthe conference approved the mandates of four Bolsheviks and four Mensheviks
from the Moscow District.

Instructive,is it not?

WhenMenshevik votes have to be mustered for the conference they countfiveMensheviks against three or four Bolsheviks.In that casethe Mensheviks want to be in the majority!

Butwhen they want to shift the political responsibility on to somebody else
they declare that the Moscow District is a “Bolshevik district”....

TheBolsheviks counted 185 votes for the Moscow District, and the Mensheviks,
in that same pamphlet, admitted that they had challenged these votes only
“tentatively”, that actuallythe votes should have been
confirmed(p. 7 of the same pamphlet).

TheMensheviks counted their votes for the Moscow District as 48+98+97,
altogether 243. Of these, 195 were challenged, although the Mensheviks
themselves insisted at the time (p. 7 of the pamphlet) that all 243 votes should
be confirmed!

TheMensheviks, therefore, considered themselves to have a very substantial
majority in Moscow District—243 votes against 185. ...Nash
Mirhas, indeed, actedveryinjudiciously: its own words serve to
prove that the Mensheviks acteddishonestlyat the conference.

Inconclusion we would remind the comrade who sent us the report on the Moscow
District that it is extremely important to havecompletefigures, for
each factory separately, on the election of delegates and on the number of
votes polled by the different candidates.

[1]See pp. 29-32 of this volume.—Ed.